Quote:
|
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?
|
The only real difference I see between boxcutters/plastic knives (a "successful" hijacking weapon in 9/11) and these chemicals are the the latter doesn't rely on involving/threatening others on the plane directly to get results.
Prior to 9/11 a similiar article could have been written stating how ineffective a mere boxcutter would be against a plane filled with numerous people, that ultimately would be able to overpower and restrain an assailant. Yet, that has proven to not be the case at all.
Studying and intense examination is easily done on paper, or in an article, after the threat has been neutralized, but in reality the chemicals the terrorists had, if they hadn't been caught, could certainly have caused harm in my opinion.
I would rather read an article like the one above, written as a result of a failed attack, than one on the front page of a major newspaper about yet another terrorist attack that has claimed as many, or more, lives than the attacks on 9/11 did.
It's easy to write articles that make light of people smuggling chemicals onto planes, comparing their plots to those of a Hollywood director, and generally making it seem like the smuggling was totally benign, but if the same article were to be written after an identical chemical attack was successful, the article would never reach publication, and if it did, the author would be crucified by the mass populace.